Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Even in tough budget times, there are lines that cannot be crossed. So I was startled by this tidbit reported recently by The Associated Press: When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the small town began billing sexual-assault victims for the cost of rape kits and forensic exams.

Ms. Palin owes voters an explanation. What was the thinking behind cutting the measly few thousand dollars needed to cover the yearly cost of swabs, specimen containers and medical tests? Whose dumb idea was it to make assault victims and their insurance companies pay instead? Unfortunately, her campaign is shielding the candidate from the press, so Americans may still be waiting for answers on Election Day.

The rape-kit controversy is a troubling matter. The insult to rape victims is obvious. So is the sexism inherent in singling them out to foot the bill for investigating their own case. And the main result of billing rape victims is to protect their attackers by discouraging women from reporting sexual assaults.

That’s why when Senator Joseph Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, drafted the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, he included provisions to make states ineligible for federal grant money if they charged rape victims for exams and the kits containing the medical supplies needed to conduct them. (Senator John McCain, Ms. Palin’s running mate, voted against Mr. Biden’s initiative, and his name has not been among the long list of co-sponsors each time the act has been renewed.)

That’s also why, when news of Wasilla’s practice of billing rape victims got around, Alaska’s State Legislature approved a bill in 2000 to stop it.

“We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence,” said Alaska’s then-governor, Tony Knowles. “Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.”

If Ms. Palin ever spoke out about the issue, one way or another, no record has surfaced. Her campaign would not answer questions about when she learned of the policy, strongly supported by the police chief: whether she saw it in the budget and if not, whether she learned of it before or after the State Legislature outlawed the practice.

All the campaign would do was provide a press release pronouncing: “Prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault is a priority for Gov. Palin.”

Eric Croft, a former Democratic state lawmaker who sponsored the corrective legislation, believes that Wasilla’s mayor knew what was going on. (She does seem to have paid heed to every other detail of town life, including what books were on the library’s shelves.)

The local hospital did the billing, but it was the town that set the policy, Mr. Croft noted. That policy was reflected in budget documents that Ms. Palin signed.

Mr. Croft further noted that right after his measure became law, Wasilla’s local paper reported that Ms. Palin’s handpicked police chief, Charlie Fannon, acknowledged the practice of billing to collect evidence for sexual-assault cases. He complained that the state was requiring the town to spend $5,000 to $14,000 a year to cover the costs. “I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer,” the chief explained.

“I can’t imagine any police chief, big city or small, who would take on the entire State Legislature on a bill that passed unanimously and not mention to their mayor that they’re doing this,” Mr. Croft said. Even if he didn’t inform her, the newspaper article would have been hard for her to miss.

In the absence of answers, speculation is bubbling in the blogosphere that Wasilla’s policy of billing rape victims may have something to do with Ms. Palin’s extreme opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape. Sexual-assault victims are typically offered an emergency contraception pill, which some people in the anti-choice camp wrongly equate with abortion.

My hunch is that it was the result of outmoded attitudes and boneheaded budget cutting. Still, Ms. Palin has been governor for under two years, and she’s running for vice president largely on her experience as mayor of tiny Wasilla — a far superior credential, she’s told us, to being a community organizer. On the rape kits, as on other issues, she owes voters a direct answer.

I watched Chris Rock on Larry King last night; he was hilarious talking about her. I agree with him on this: On the couple of interviews she HAS deigned to do (Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric) after about 3 or 4 minutes in, you kind of start to feel sorry for her.......

She scares me too, Joe. Big time. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. Can you imagine her in a debate with Joe Biden? That should be interesting......of course, they will probably come up with some excuse as to why she can't attend.....

I got some more repugnican "hate" mail today about "Barack Hussein Obama" refusing to hold his hand over his heart for the pledge of allegiance.......these clowns are so lame. Unfortunately this is the mentality of so many voters.....scary times, indeed.

hugs,Alan

PS - so good to see you back with us Joe! I've missed you

Logged

"Remember my sentimental friend that a heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others." - The Wizard of Oz

I think having a soccer mom and a veteran in office is better than having two lawyers there. She has a higher probability of understanding the average person than Obama or Biden. McCain, likewise is also more likely to be in touch with the average guy. Obama and Biden have been career politicians. It's unlikely that either has ever had a job that required them to be at risk. By at risk, I mean physical or financial.

Palin has been a fisherman (yes that is correct) in Alaska which is no small feat. If you have not lived there it's a challenging place to live. Palin's husband is a pilot, fisherman, and blue collar kinda guy.

McCain served in the military and has regularly stood for what he believes in in the Senate. McCain's wife is in the alchohol business and has done quite well, regardless of how she got there. It's notable that there is a prenup. So he's really there for her, not her money.

Obama is married to a full time organizer. He was a lawyer briefly, but has basically run for office his entire professional life. He refuses to acknowledge his muslim heritage.

Biden has been a politician his entire life. He was briefly a private attorney. While he has some adversity and tragedy in his life he flip flops. Most notably, he stated earlier this year he would never run for VP. He also stated Obama was entirely not qualified to be president. Yet suddenly he's Obama's best friend? BS. I smell a snowjob a mile away.

I personally think these things boil down to a lesser of evils contest. In which case I'd rather have the guy who could have left the POW camp because of his status, but stayed because he gave a damn about his fellow soldiers and the anti-abortion mother who has been a commercial fisherman and a basketball player.

For some reason I think that will be less evil than putting two more lawyers in the white house who check the direction of the wind before announcing an opinion.

Logged

Don't obsess over the wrong things. Life isn't about your numbers, it isn't about this forum, it isn't about someone's opinion. It's about getting out there and enjoying it. I am a person with HIV - not the other way around.

H'puppy, now that IS funny! You do sarcasm well without even using a smiley face thing to show that you're joking! What's especially funny, to me, is that being a fisher(wo)man is like being VP or even the Prez, right? I mean who would better know how to get things done than somebody who's in politics for the long haul. The last 'soccer mom' I saw was driving a Suburban with one child in the vehicle yapping on a cell phone. She was probably planning something; I bet she could run a country, too! All this time we've been needing good politicians they were right there in front of us: soccer moms and veterans... what have we been thinking for all these years?

If I thought for a minute that you weren't joking, that you actually believed what you posted as truth instead of the joke that it is, I'd be... shocked, disappointed, scared that others might actually fall for that kind of thinking.

I don't want my president and vice president to be an "average joe" or ordinary. I expect the future leaders of one of the most powerful countries on the planet to be extraordinary. I expect them to demonstrate leadership and knowledge above and beyond that of the average citizen in the areas of politics, law, economics, and international diplomacy. I feel McCain and Palin have demonstrated a lack of knowledge or skill in all of these areas.

And please, I had hoped that all that Obama/Muslim nonsense had died for good. Apparently not.

It was McCain's own fault he even was a POW. He left the formation his unit was flying in to try to fight the enemy alone (a direct violation of orders). He's too aged to be president, and Palin is way too out of touch with the average person (someone like me, for example).

As for her approving the legislation that billed rape victims for the kits, how dare she! Being a rape victim a couple times myself, I couldn't imagine getting a bill for being attacked by an assailant. That's absolutely ludicrous. She's an under-handed bitch, pure and simple. I wonder if a bill was sent to guardians of children who were molested.

McCain/Palin would take this country and the average Joe to hell. McCain's medical records (all of them, not just some of them) need to be released and he has constantly blocked this. He forgets things when he talks also. And Palin might be a fisherlady in Alaska, but I fail to see how that qualifies her to run a country. In other words, she's a horrible candidate who could be president should something happen to McCain (if they're elected, God help us). Her latest remark about having foreign relation experience by being able to see Russia shows what an unthinking person she is.

Hopefully McCain's campaign will fall apart, and this country will have a chance. Just my thoughts.

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

I think having a soccer mom and a veteran in office is better than having two lawyers there. She has a higher probability of understanding the average person than Obama or Biden. McCain, likewise is also more likely to be in touch with the average guy. Obama and Biden have been career politicians. It's unlikely that either has ever had a job that required them to be at risk. By at risk, I mean physical or financial.

Palin has been a fisherman (yes that is correct) in Alaska which is no small feat. If you have not lived there it's a challenging place to live. Palin's husband is a pilot, fisherman, and blue collar kinda guy.

McCain served in the military and has regularly stood for what he believes in in the Senate. McCain's wife is in the alchohol business and has done quite well, regardless of how she got there. It's notable that there is a prenup. So he's really there for her, not her money.

Obama is married to a full time organizer. He was a lawyer briefly, but has basically run for office his entire professional life. He refuses to acknowledge his muslim heritage.

Biden has been a politician his entire life. He was briefly a private attorney. While he has some adversity and tragedy in his life he flip flops. Most notably, he stated earlier this year he would never run for VP. He also stated Obama was entirely not qualified to be president. Yet suddenly he's Obama's best friend? BS. I smell a snowjob a mile away.

I personally think these things boil down to a lesser of evils contest. In which case I'd rather have the guy who could have left the POW camp because of his status, but stayed because he gave a damn about his fellow soldiers and the anti-abortion mother who has been a commercial fisherman and a basketball player.

For some reason I think that will be less evil than putting two more lawyers in the white house who check the direction of the wind before announcing an opinion.

Yeah...because that strategy has really been vindicated over the past eight years.....

Puppy, a little friendly advice...Don't drink and blog.....

« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 02:43:04 PM by atlq »

Logged

“Keep up the good work.... And God bless you.” -- Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

I think having a soccer mom and a veteran in office is better than having two lawyers there. She has a higher probability of understanding the average person than Obama or Biden. McCain, likewise is also more likely to be in touch with the average guy.

I don't see how the average joe can related to someone like John McCain who can't even remember how many houses he owns.

Quote

Obama and Biden have been career politicians.

John McCain has been in politics for 26 years. I'd say that a pretty good career.

Quote

It's unlikely that either has ever had a job that required them to be at risk. By at risk, I mean physical or financial. Palin has been a fisherman (yes that is correct) in Alaska which is no small feat. If you have not lived there it's a challenging place to live. Palin's husband is a pilot, fisherman, and blue collar kinda guy.

There are lots of fishmerman, and lots of soccer moms. Are they all qualified to be vice-president?

Quote

McCain served in the military and has regularly stood for what he believes in in the Senate. McCain's wife is in the alchohol business and has done quite well, regardless of how she got there. It's notable that there is a prenup. So he's really there for her, not her money.

I'm not sure why McCain's relationship with his wife is relevant here. You are right that she has done *quite* well financially -- she is freaking loaded -- not something the average joe can relate to these days.

Quote

Obama is married to a full time organizer. He was a lawyer briefly, but has basically run for office his entire professional life.

Obama was a community organizer and civil rights attorney, helping ensure people's rights were not violated or trampled on. I guess if you've never had that happen to you, then you can't relate. Then he was a law professor.

So you are wrong in saying that he has run for office his entire professional life.

Quote

He refuses to acknowledge his muslim heritage.

Obama is a Christian, plain and simple.

It's clear, though, that you have issues with Muslims.

Quote

Biden has been a politician his entire life. He was briefly a private attorney. While he has some adversity and tragedy in his life he flip flops. Most notably, he stated earlier this year he would never run for VP. He also stated Obama was entirely not qualified to be president. Yet suddenly he's Obama's best friend? BS. I smell a snowjob a mile away.

Every politician changes their mind (flip flops, as you say). Have you never changed your mind? Here are a list of some of John McCain's flip flops:

I personally think these things boil down to a lesser of evils contest. In which case I'd rather have the guy who could have left the POW camp because of his status, but stayed because he gave a damn about his fellow soldiers and the anti-abortion mother who has been a commercial fisherman and a basketball player.

Everyone gets to vote for who they want. I just don't see fishing and basketball as being qualifications for being VP.

Quote

For some reason I think that will be less evil than putting two more lawyers in the white house who check the direction of the wind before announcing an opinion.

Personally, I'd prefer someone who look arounds and gather the available facts before making a decision. Look where George Bush's single-mindedness got us: a war for 5+ years.

And, McCain's choice of Palin was an outstanding example of "checking the wind" before making a decision.

Regards,

Henry

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

I have to agree with hotpuppy... I see no problem for either McCain and or Palin... and I question Obama... but, I'm open to all views... etc... from both sides. I've never Voted democrate and its less likely I will in the future.

There are lots of fishmerman, and lots of soccer moms. Are they all qualified to be vice-president?

If they are then Ann and I should be in the running, Ann was a fisherman on The Rock, I fish, was a soccer/rugby Mum for years and now a rugby/hockey/touch football grandmother, maybe it's time for you guys to vote us in ....

If they are then Ann and I should be in the running, Ann was a fisherman on The Rock, I fish, was a soccer/rugby Mum for years and now a rugby/hockey/touch football grandmother, maybe it's time for you guys to vote us in ....

HugsJan

Sounds like a GREAT idea! I'll let you two duke it out to see who's gonna be prez and who's gonna be the VP!

I see a lot of rationalizations made about why John McCain who is the son of an admiral and a career politician who left his wife for a rich beer heiress and whose one executive decision he has made thus far has been foisting this ex-beauty queen who gets prayed over in church to keep the witches (literally...no joke) from derailing her political career and believes one can "pray the gay away", points her finger in judgment on the families of others and sarcastically belittling people who work day in and day out to make their community and the world a better place.....are the people who are more likely to get how life is for the average joe than the man with a funny name who grew up with a single mom while barely scraping by in Kansas, lived the American dream and got an education in two very prestigious colleges, while excelling at it. Then, he goes on to use his education to become a community organizer and civil rights attorney and a teacher while marrying a nice woman who wasn't exactly an heiress herself and goes on to build a family together.

In the old days, people who actually went out and bettered themselves and made a success out of lives despite their modest resources growing up and didn't become totally selfish ass hats in the process were the kind of people we looked up and aspired to be.

And someone wants to tell me that the guy who had life handed to him on a silver platter, who was unfortunate enough to have to live through being a POW and came back to a marriage that failed while he was hooking up with a beer heiress, and uses those connections to get him a place in the Senate where he served for 26 years, is the guy better able to "relate" to the experience of the average American?

That I don't get. Even looking past the fact McCain is oblivious to the economic crisis unfolding as a result of some the very policies he championed, seems oddly confused about the nuances of the Middle East for someone who boasts such a huge foreign relations portfolio, and the fact that he has flip-flopped on everything (torture, taxes, regulation, drilling, privacy) with there possible exception of campaign finance reform, there is a steady trickle of people who are more about, "Well, yeah....but there's something about Barack Obama".

I'm not talking about average "dyed in the wool" hardcore republican. I'm talking about people who are otherwise feeling the pinch and can see that things have been pretty well bollixed by the republicans in the last 8 years.

The way I see it, I could put my armchair psychologist hat on and give my impressions of that latter person I have encountered far too often for my comfort.

As near as I can tell, the vast majority of those people I could run a point by point discussion where we absolutely agree on everything (civil rights, worker's rights, education, opportunities, help for the needy, rebuilding our reputation as a nation, health care, investing in our infrastructure...etc). And then we get to Barack Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. A man who pretty much stands in line with their way of thinking. But man, that's a fucked up name. Oh, and did you happen to notice the amount of melanin in his skin? And worked in the inner city of Chicago.

Honestly, I think it makes people more open on subconscious to believe something must be wrong with him and more likely to believe whatever nonsense used by some to build on that "gut level" mistrust. Everything superficially screams, EXOTIC, about him..or more succinctly "different".

But in the final analysis, those things that "just don't feel right" seem to be based on superficial impressions and little to do with objective reality. I think a goodly portion of those feelings may have more to do with latent prejudice, not necessarily of the racial type, that leads one to accept stories and rumors that one can drive a truck through ("sworn in on the Koran", "won't say the pledge", "is a secret muslim", "harbors radical African-American sentiments"). They allow people to rationalize and shore up their superficial impressions keeping them from objectively looking at the facts.

The end result is profoundly tragic and self-contradictory. Intellectual ability and curiosity are looked are suddenly "elitist". And self-achievement is "opportunism". Even a cursory examination of the facts says this man, Barack Obama, has done precisely the kinds of things that should be admired, not dismissed.

Except for those silly superficial things that at the end of the day are really not all that important.

When push comes to shove, when pressed, I've rarely met anyone who could tell me why they disliked Obama that didn't throw up at least one or two "urban myths" that have been widely debunked as why they just don't trust Obama.

They are rationalizations for the most part. Tell me you disagree with Obama's policies and be specific. Tell me what really sets you on fire for McCain and be specific. I can respect that.

I believe that John McCain deserves to lose and lose badly, after choosing Sarah as his running mate. His trying to foist her onto the American public as someone even remotely qualified to be VP is an insult to all Americans. So John, which is it?

Did you put your country first and find the best possible candidate as your running mate? Or, did you pick someone who you thought could pander to your constituency? And in that case, you would be putting your own self interests ahead of those of America.

I can't understand how anyone gay can vote Republican at all. Particularly for Palin. "Pray the gay away" Pleeez. I don't see how an ignorant, rightwing, "christian" fanatic, from an extremely isolated small town in Alaska can understand the common man. She is not at all representative of the common man - in her beliefs or life experience. She is manifestly unqualified to be president, and that becomes painfully apparent ever time she opens her mouth. The intellectual gymnastics the one has to go through to try to justify her position on the ticket boogles the mind. Shame on John McCain, and anyone supporting her (to there credit some Republicans are finally beginning to speak up, but not nearly enough).

Barack Obama's life story is the epitome of the America dream. Yet so many try and dismiss it. Discribing him as somehow alien - unamerican

When I hear anyone gay say they are supporting this ticket I shake my head is disbelief. What do you think Palin's positions will be on Equal rights for gays, hiv meds funding, aids research funding? You really think she will be our friend? If you do, I say you're clueless, in denial, or both.

GO BARACK!

Logged

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

When I hear anyone gay say they are supporting this ticket I shake my head is disbelief. What do you think Palin's positions will be on Equal rights for gays, hiv meds funding, aids research funding? You really think she will be our friend? If you do, I say you're clueless, in denial, or both.

Well said! I didn't shake my head, but I almost threw something at my computer screen after reading hotpuppy's Reply #4 above in this thread. He's not only clueless and in denial; he's just plain.... I won't say, because I don't want a time out. Is it possible we have a member of the Log Cabin Republicans in our midst? It's one thing for someone gay to support McPalin, but one who is HIV+??? One whose personal blog is mostly about how many dicks he can suck and contains blatantly racist statements? We know John and Sarah are grateful for his support.

I was trying so hard not to respond to Reply #4, but my tongue is bleeding from biting on it.

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

I think those gay folks supporting Republicans/McCain should be told again and again that another 4 years of the conservatives they would finally get the Supreme Court they want for many years to come. Most of the liberal justices are old, and during the last 8 years Bush scored big time already with John Roberts. One more term of Republicans and you guys are this close to having Roe v. Wade revoked.

It can also mean death by stoning of homosexuals, well, exaggerated maybe, but I am not so sure a new Supreme Court with a justice or two replaced and appointed by a McCain will not uphold the constitutionality of the state's right to make their laws on penalizing gay sex again and banning abortion all together even for rape victims. And dream on with having any civil union for same sex couples as once the Republicans succeed in appointing just one or more God-fearing creationism-supporting conservative to the Supreme Court, which is where the constitutional and legal validity will be challenged and decided.

Just for this fact alone should make any gay men taking a month leave and start campaigning for Obama.

Can I just say I LOVE SARAH PALIN. I haven't had this much fun in ages... seriously. I just read that there are two left-out portions of the Couric interview that may be coming out, and that should prove even more disastrous than the other bits.

For some reason she reminds me of what a character would be like for an American version of an Almodóvar flick. Can't put my finger on exactly why. DISCUSS.

You know I am kind of feeling sorry for her. I really don't think she is a complete idiot, just ill informed and out of her league on the national scene. One can't be completely brainless to run and win a statewide election. And in Alaska she has to be doing something right to have had an 80% approval rating. I doubt she campaigned to be his vice-presidential candidate and when the nominee of your party comes knocking at the door who says no. McCain and his advisers are to blame.

That being said looks like philly was right and we have more to look forward to:

Can I just say I LOVE SARAH PALIN. I haven't had this much fun in ages... seriously. I just read that there are two left-out portions of the Couric interview that may be coming out, and that should prove even more disastrous than the other bits.

For some reason she reminds me of what a character would be like for an American version of an Almodóvar flick. Can't put my finger on exactly why. DISCUSS.

maybe it is because she resembles the crazy nut character from Women at the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown...lol... and how fitting...lol...guns and all....

[attachment deleted by admin]

Logged

POSITIVE PEDALERS... We are a group of people living with HIV/AIDS, eliminating stigma through our positive public example.

This screwed up state has more "one issue" voters than anywhere I know of. And what's the one issue? Why, of course, it is the most IMPORTANT issue facing America today....and no, I don't meanthe Economy, or the War in Iraq, or any of that triviality.....I'm talking about ABORTION.

Can you believe someone would vote, based on that issue alone? Believe me, they can, do, and will.It makes some of us crazy, but it is what it is.

alanBAMA for oBAMA

edited to add:The only reason I can imagine someone GAY claiming to be republican, would be that they may have personally never been subjected to any form of discrimination. They're young, give em time.....

a little history lesson from an old guy:

I was fired from my very first 'out of college' job [1978-1980] for being gay; the boss called me in, had two letters on his desk. One was from him, firing me for "not performing up to expectations" and the other was from me, a letter of resignation. He said "I don't think you want to be a 'token' like Sandra (she was the only black person in our accounting department). You sign the resignation, we will give you a 'clean' reference. You make us fire you, we will refuse to pay your unemployment."

I made them fire me. They did have to pay my unemployment. I still have that letter.

You can still be fired for being gay at many places. Sad, but a fact of life in this country.

« Last Edit: September 30, 2008, 08:49:15 PM by AlanBama »

Logged

"Remember my sentimental friend that a heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others." - The Wizard of Oz

Can you believe someone would vote, based on that issue alone? Believe me, they can, do, and will.It makes some of us crazy, but it is what it is.

Hello Alan,

Unfortunately YES !! I believe it. It is exactly the reason Amendment- 2 , is on the Florida Ballot this year. Basically to make sure those republicans are motivated to get out and vote, for what otherwise was a dismal choice (McCain) for them this year. ! Anything with "Gay " Protect the family" or Abortion gets them out everytime. Sneaky bunch of @#@#@#@#@#@ they are.

This screwed up state has more "one issue" voters than anywhere I know of. And what's the one issue? Why, of course, it is the most IMPORTANT issue facing America today....and no, I don't meanthe Economy, or the War in Iraq, or any of that triviality.....I'm talking about ABORTION.

So true. One of my sisters falls into this category. I think she would rather not vote than support a candidate who was pro-choice.

Some of my family got together yesterday for my mother's birthday and it looks like the family is split on the presidential candidates. My two brothers, my father and I support Obama and my partner, my mother, my step-father and step-brother support McCain. One sister (the pro-life advocate) is probably going to write-in Ron Paul and I'm not sure where my other sister stands.

So true. One of my sisters falls into this category. I think she would rather not vote than support a candidate who was pro-choice.

Some of my family got together yesterday for my mother's birthday and it looks like the family is split on the presidential candidates. My two brothers, my father and I support Obama and my partner, my mother, my step-father and step-brother support McCain. One sister (the pro-life advocate) is probably going to write-in Ron Paul and I'm not sure where my other sister stands.

Hey isn't NC a swing state this week? You might want to spend some time talking to your mother and partner about giving Ron Paul a second look. ... considering family solidarity and all that ...

Now Children, Ms. Palin deserves the utmost respect, because after all, she was knocked up unmarried teenager, who pulled herself up by her muckluck straps to become governor of the largest state in the union. (At least 'til it melts from the Global Warming that she doesn't believe in) Once there, she slashed funding for, guess what? Unmarried pregnant teenageed girls!! If that's not voting your conscience, i don't know what is.

Anyway the average american family size has 3.14 members, and the Palin's have 9 or 2.8x. But their net worth is less than 2.8x the average.

OK, I'll stop with the statistics because I don't want to make it seem like I'm feeling for them - I'm not, they shouldn't have as many stupid children and apparently they can't stop them from reproducing either.

Anyway the average american family size has 3.14 members, and the Palin's have 9 or 2.8x. But their net worth is less than 2.8x the average.

OK, I'll stop with the statistics because I don't want to make it seem like I'm feeling for them - I'm not, they shouldn't have as many stupid children and apparently they can't stop them from reproducing either.

Ummm ....This analysis is similar to those we've seen from the Bush Administration over the years. And it similarly makes no sense:

1) Average (mean) net worth stats include Bill Gates and his peer group. They tend to bring the "average" up quite a bit. A more reliable figure is the median (where half the families are above the number and half below). Bush has been arguing for years that average incomes and net worth are growing -- but basically that's only been because millionaires are doing great.

2) Adjusting the Palins' net worth for the national debt but not adding in the value of government provided retirement monies (Social Security and Medicare) is a) not how measures of net worth cited are calculatedb) lopsided

3) Trustworthy median net worth stats are hard to come by -- the most recent detailed study available is for 2004 (2007 data will be published next year). http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/2004%20SCF%20Chartbook.zip For 2004, mean net worth was about 5 times the median net worth. In other words the "average" (median) family net worth is about $100,000 NOT $500,000. So the Palins probably have about 10 to 20 times the average family net worth.

Palin is trying to sell herself as being "one of the people" and probably believes she is. I think Americans generally like to consider themselves as financially "middle class" even when they are not. If you are rich there is an implicit obligation in our culture that you should be doing something for people less fortunate. I've heard people say "My family is not rich, we are just upper middle class" even though they have a 7000 square foot house in a gated community, a beach condo, a boat and luxury cars. On the other end of the spectrum no one really likes to think of themselves as poor. Of course if you look at the world population most people in the USA would be considered rich.

Ummm ....This analysis is similar to those we've seen from the Bush Administration over the years. And it similarly makes no sense:

1) Average (mean) net worth stats include Bill Gates and his peer group. They tend to bring the "average" up quite a bit. A more reliable figure is the median (where half the families are above the number and half below). Bush has been arguing for years that average incomes and net worth are growing -- but basically that's only been because millionaires are doing great.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was looking for the "average Joe", not the "mean Joe" :-)

Quote

2) Adjusting the Palins' net worth for the national debt but not adding in the value of government provided retirement monies (Social Security and Medicare) is a) not how measures of net worth cited are calculatedb) lopsided

Are the Palins collecting on Social security and medicare benefits already ?

Quote

3) Trustworthy median net worth stats are hard to come by -- the most recent detailed study available is for 2004 (2007 data will be published next year). http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/2004%20SCF%20Chartbook.zip For 2004, mean net worth was about 5 times the median net worth. In other words the "average" (median) family net worth is about $100,000 NOT $500,000. So the Palins probably have about 10 to 20 times the average family net worth.

Thanks for those links. Very interesting. I guess you can really make statistics can really show anything. I should have posted yours !

She'll probably do alright tonight (by alright I mean no catastrophic quotes or 2 minute silences). The format that was agreed to by both camps allows no interaction between the two and she has been stuffed with enough one-liners and wingnut talking points to bluff her way through the questions of the now completely neutered Gwen Ifill. It doesn't matter though...they can close the barn door, but the horse has escaped.....

Logged

“Keep up the good work.... And God bless you.” -- Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

My biggest complaint was that she wouldn't directly answer the question asked. She kept steering everything back to "energy", the only subject she seemed to 'think' she knew all about.

Until she said it in the debate, I hadn't really focused in on the idea that McCain had asked her to be in charge of energy policy!!!! This is the woman who at another point on the debate said Alaska was leading the charge toward energy independence and that natural gas was a source of "clean, green" energy (guess she needs a little refresher on the atomic structure of methane? -- oh, but that's right I forgot that she doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming).

The idea that John McCain thinks she is capable of leading the charge on energy independence is just another reason to question his judgment re Mrs. Palin.

I found her charming, likeable, plucky, uncowed, unpretentious, shrewd, completely unprepared for the job, strangely stepford wifes-ish -- like almost bipolar or robotoic -- they way she was all shucks gosh folksy looking at Joe Biden then would turn her head, furrow her brow, steel her eyes at the camera and go into some preset speech to sound all well informed and serious.

Much better than I expected, and totally horrific she could be a powerful person in washington soon.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 05:20:02 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Once from the gym on CNN with no sound and no captions. The only thing I could see were Gwen Ifill's questions, which were displayed on the screen. I think she did poorly as a journalist. Especially on the same-sex marriage question. WTF does "Would you support granting same-sex benefits to couples" mean ? What's a same-sex benefit ? A special free tattoo on your penis ? I was angry just reading that question without being able to know what else was going on.

How about some real precise, substantive questions, like, after visiting your same-sex partner in the hospital, if he happens to die in there, will you be able to collect a social security pension as a widow ? Or are you not worthy of that, despite both paying all your social security taxes ?

I watched the debate a 2nd time at home on PBS since I had recorded it on my DVR, this time with the sound so that I could hear the candidates' answers.

You betcha Palin didn't do as badly as expected. Darn !

I did not think Biden was very impressive overall. I knew his positions on same sex marriage before (as well as Obama's), but I still wanted to kill him when I heard his answer to it - basically that it should be up to religion to define civil marriage ! That made no sense whatsoever and it really, really alienated me as an atheist. I wanted to shoot him through the screen. I don't live in a swing state (California), and I am seriously considering voting for a 3rd party candidate as a result of last night's debate. Maybe even vote for the candidate of the green party that I am still registered to. I better start looking up who it is. I was going to vote for Obama before last night, but I don't think I can stand his VP choice.

Man yall really do not read between the lines... yes Prada was on the opposit side of democracy... and the polar bear full length fur... now how can you miss that... the polar bear is on the possible extinction list... I consider myself middle class... I'm worth more than a million but, what is a million worth in todays dollars? not much... But, you have to give this women credit... she's pretty sharp and she comes across as a sincere human being... In reality... people need to wake up and see who actually runs this country... its not the president, its not Congress ... its the corperations, big industry... etc... the politicians are puppets of the puppet masters... now whose being decieved?

Man yall really do not read between the lines... yes Prada was on the opposit side of democracy... and the polar bear full length fur... now how can you miss that... the polar bear is on the possible extinction list... I consider myself middle class... I'm worth more than a million but, what is a million worth in todays dollars? not much... But, you have to give this women credit... she's pretty sharp and she comes across as a sincere human being... In reality... people need to wake up and see who actually runs this country... its not the president, its not Congress ... its the corperations, big industry... etc... the politicians are puppets of the puppet masters... now whose being decieved?

I can read between the lines just fine. But I wish I didn't have to. Biden really tried to appeal to the religious people last night, while Palin was trying to say as little as possible. I didn't learn all that much about Palin in the debate, and much more about Biden.

I didn't vote for Al "What would Jesus do" Gore in 2000, nor for George born-again Bush in 2000 or 2004. If Biden is going to bend over to the Church and resolve all senate ties in their favor, well, I just don't think I can live with voting for him. I hope he convinced enough proponents of continuing theocracy last night to vote for him instead of his opponent, who was not exactly forthcoming about her real positions.

But, you have to give this women credit... she's pretty sharp and she comes across as a sincere human being...

She doesn't come across as sharp to me. She speaks in a condescending tone, as if she has to dumb-down everything for the average Joe. But I don't think it's intentionally. I think she needs to dumb-down everything for her to fully understand it.

I also don't find her sincere. She seems fake to me (all that unnecessary winking and speaking to Americans as though we all speak Alaskan-folksy English). I think she is sincere in her religious beliefs. In some respect, I think that makes her more dangerous than Bush (who I suspect was never really committed to evangelicals, just their votes). But I don't find Palin's hockey-mom references to every question on the economy sincere. Patronising, perhaps. But not sincere.

But, you have to give this women credit... she's pretty sharp and she comes across as a sincere human being...

Sure SHE IS, was it 5 colleges in 6 years or 6 colleges in 5 years for a BA in Journalism (4 year degree)? On a good day, she can put together an entire sentence in the English language without help. Have the best dayMichael

I didn't vote for Al "What would Jesus do" Gore in 2000, nor for George born-again Bush in 2000 or 2004. If Biden is going to bend over to the Church and resolve all senate ties in their favor, well, I just don't think I can live with voting for him. I hope he convinced enough proponents of continuing theocracy last night to vote for him instead of his opponent, who was not exactly forthcoming about her real positions.

But hey Brain, if Barr or McKinney are more to your liking, go ahead and vote for them, or for no one. The rest of us will continue to muddy ourselves in the trenches fighting for your continued right of folks like you to remain above it all. Your purity being more important than actually achieving anything, after all.

BTW...The Alaska Governor has been quite plain about her positions. From supporting policies which made rape victims purchase their own rape kits, to stating that homosexuality is a "choice" that she disagrees with, to supporting her churches recent "ex gay" programs......I am have no doubt as to what she believes. You do?

« Last Edit: October 05, 2008, 05:10:42 PM by atlq »

Logged

“Keep up the good work.... And God bless you.” -- Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

End quote.

If that's not surrendering the definition of marriage to religion, then I don't know what is.

The fact is that marriage is already codified in civil law, both federal and state. Biden is running for a federal office. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, and religions have zero business defining laws for all citizens including people that are not of their faith. If one accepts that marriage is to be defined by religion, as Biden said he does, then I think due to separation of church and state that every single federal and state marriage law should be either stripped off the books completely, or rewritten to be civil union laws for everybody, without the word marriage appearing into any law anymore. That position would make much more sense. I could actually accept that. But that is not Biden's position. His position is that faith defines marriage, and that is then codified into civil laws for all citizens. How can that even be constitutional ? And where does that leave the 16% of atheists in this country (I got that stat from the movie "Religulous" which I saw last night. Not as funny as I hoped) ? Biden is supposed to be a professor of constitutional law.

I am aware of Obama's and Biden's record on gay rights, but I would never know it from any debate. I knew that both Obama and Biden did not support same-sex marriage before the VP debate, but I never knew on what grounds. Now I know at least the reason why Biden opposes it. I don't know if Obama's reason is the same or not.

Quote

But hey Brain, if Barr or McKinney are more to your liking, go ahead and vote for them, or for no one. The rest of us will continue to muddy ourselves in the trenches fighting for your continued right of folks like you to remain above it all. Your purity being more important than actually achieving anything, after all.

Well certainly Barr who wrote DOMA isn't any more to my liking than anyone else !McKinney, I will have to look into some more.

This is not about purity. And actually my vote may achieve something. Even if doesn't get my favorite candidate elected (whoever that turns out to be, but neither Obama nor McCain), it might give funding to the people and parties who truly support us, and try to steer the country to the left. As long as it doesn't get the worst person elected - that would be the McCain/Palin ticket - which I don't think it will given that I live in California, then I think it's a good thing. If I lived in a swing state, then my vote might be for Obama/Biden, even though I don't support many of their positions especially on this one issue of same-sex marriage.

Quote

BTW...The Alaska Governor has been quite plain about her positions. From supporting policies which made rape victims purchase their own rape kits, to stating that homosexuality is a "choice" that she disagrees with, to supporting her churches recent "ex gay" programs......I am have no doubt as to what she believes. You do?

I am well aware of her positions and I would never vote for her ticket. I don't think she was plain about her positions at all in the debate. She danced around it most like everything else. She tried to portray herself as "tolerant" of gays. I guess that means she won't send us to the camps. At least she didn't try to say she was a "compassionate" conservative.

If that's not surrendering the definition of marriage to religion, then I don't know what is.

The fact is that marriage is already codified in civil law, both federal and state. Biden is running for a federal office. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, and religions have zero business defining laws for all citizens including people that are not of their faith. If one accepts that marriage is to be defined by religion, as Biden said he does, then I think due to separation of church and state that every single federal and state marriage law should be either stripped off the books completely, or rewritten to be civil union laws for everybody, without the word marriage appearing into any law anymore. That position would make much more sense. I could actually accept that. But that is not Biden's position. His position is that faith defines marriage, and that is then codified into civil laws for all citizens. How can that even be constitutional ? And where does that leave the 16% of atheists in this country (I got that stat from the movie "Religulous" which I saw last night. Not as funny as I hoped) ? Biden is supposed to be a professor of constitutional law.

And right before the debate quote you sited was this: (taken from the same source)

Biden: "Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do."

I think that is pretty strong support for the treatment of same sex couples, under the law. As a matter of fact he even uses the term "same-sex marriage". I would be very happy if things he mentioned came to be law. Let the churches decide who does and doesn't get married in their church. I think we should focus on which party will be more willing to work with us in advancing those issues Biden stated.

Logged

"Let us give pubicity to HV/AIDS and not hide it..." "One of the things destroying people with AIDS is the stigma we attach to it." Nelson Mandela

And right before the debate quote you sited was this: (taken from the same source)

Biden: "Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do."

Hey Woods,

I believe, I remember Gov. Palin agreed with Sen Biden on this point. In my opinion, Sen Biden baited Gov Palin so she would agree and if nothing else, what will the god fearing folks of Wasilla think of her now as they "pray away the gay". Have the best dayMichael(who always uses the lower case "g" in god so not to appear pretentious)

And right before the debate quote you sited was this: (taken from the same source)

Biden: "Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

I don't know how you can reconcile this answer with the next one he gave about being opposed to same-sex marriage which I quoted. Surely if same-sex couples cannot get the legal status of a civil marriage, then there is a distinction between couples from a legal standpoint.

So, in my opinion, Biden clearly contradicted himself. One of his two answers was a lie.

I would prefer to believe it was the answer you quoted that was true and the one I quoted that was a lie. But remember that we are talking about the same Joe Biden who voted for DOMA. So I choose to believe that his second answer was more accurate.

Quote

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do."

I heard and read that part too, but I didn't find that answer overly convincing. Many of the rights he cited already exist under some state laws, and are not strictly federal rights or benefits. I agree that there is a need to reconcile some federal laws with state laws around joint ownership of property particularly, and in some other cases. But overall, I don't really see him promising much change. IMO, he certainly danced around the issue.

If he really wanted to talk about benefits for same-sex couples, then he could have made statements regarding his support for some of the most important of the 1000 federal rights available to heterosexual couples, such as the ability to bring your partner into the country, social security survivor benefits, and joint federal tax filing. But he did not make any statement to that effect.

Quote

I think that is pretty strong support for the treatment of same sex couples, under the law.

It's all relative. It is much stronger than what Palin had to say for sure. But I think it still goes way short of what's needed.

Quote

As a matter of fact he even uses the term "same-sex marriage".

Thanks for pointing that out ! I didn't even notice that part ! I guess that's one more contradiction from Biden, since he said in the next answer that he opposes same-sex marriage.

Quote

I would be very happy if things he mentioned came to be law.

Yes, so would I, but have the audacity to hope for more.

Quote

Let the churches decide who does and doesn't get married in their church.

And that's completely OK, as long as that religious marriage has no legal bearing, and is a separate institution from civil marriage.

Quote

I think we should focus on which party will be more willing to work with us in advancing those issues Biden stated.

Well if you really want to focus on that, then it's clearly not either of the big 2. Unfortunately, the other parties don't have electable candidates for the highest offices. I think if they were more popular, we would hear a different tune from the democrats.

If he really wanted to talk about benefits for same-sex couples, then he could have made statements regarding his support for some of the most important of the 1000 federal rights available to heterosexual couples, such as the ability to bring your partner into the country, social security survivor benefits, and joint federal tax filing. But he did not make any statement to that effect.- Mad Brain

I think that is pretty strong support for the treatment of same sex couples, under the law. -Woodshere

It's all relative. It is much stronger than what Palin had to say for sure. But I think it still goes way short of what's needed. -MadBrain

I would be very happy if things he mentioned came to be law. - Woodshere

Yes, so would I, but have the audacity to hope for more.- Woodshere

Sigh...maybe I lack for audacity but after eight years of Republican led assaults on our relationships and humanity I'd "settle" for this:

But of course, demanding a pony and then threatening to vote against the party that is actually working on our behalf is also an option, I guess......Just sayin'

That is a pretty good document. I hadn't seen it before. Thanks for posting it.I don't think it's very consistent with Obama's previous statements, or Biden's. This summer I read an interview in HRC's equality magazine where Obama said in the same paragraph that he was against DOMA, and that states should be allow to choose whether to recognize same-sex unions from other states or not - and that is half of the provisions of DOMA. I spent a lot of time on google yesterday trying to find his exact quote, but HRC doesn't have their magazine archived online for the public.

In short, I think it's obvious the democrats have contradicted themselves quite a bit on this issue and I don't really buy the promises they are making. I usually like to vote for the candidate that has the best position on the issues I care about as long as it doesn't hurt the cause. I voted for Nader in 2000 who fully supported same-sex marriage. And the 2nd best (Gore) still won in my state of California, so I don't regret that vote.

In this case it seems that Obama is the strongest candidate on the ballot. I have been looking into the McKinney campaign and I really cannot find much on it. So I think I am going to vote for Obama after all. I got my absentee ballot in the mail on monday. I still need to read the stuff on all the propositions.

I note that California Prop 8 - "eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry" is now coming out ahead in some polls. I'm sure Biden coming out against same-sex marriage did not help that.

You are the only individual....the ONLY one....that I have come across anywhere that has interpreted Biden's comments as "coming out against same-sex marriage".

He was asked the question by Gwen Ifill and he said very plainly that he did not support it. See the transcript I posted and linked to earlier in this thread. Barack Obama has said the same many times. I don't see any room for interpretation there. He supports other things, but not same-sex marriage.

Do you have any evidence that Biden (and Obama) are lying, and are actually closet same-sex marriage supporters ?

Since you seem to be a single issue voter, think about this....Three times since 2002 the Congress brought the Federal Marriage Amendment through committee and to the floors of the House and Senate for votes....until Nov. of 2006. Since then? No Federal Marriage Amendment....Hmmmm ,what could have changed in November of 2006?...I'm guessing that the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress had a lot everything to do with this. You should also remember that a large number of Democrats voted against this amendment and were bludgeoned with that vote in 2004 when the RNC, state Republican parties and Karl Rove wrote many of the numerous state constitutional amendments.

The national Democratic Party supports the legal right of gay and lesbian couples to enter into contractual relationships in which property rights, insurance, and issues like hospital visitation and the right to inherit property are guaranteed. Are they at the point of calling it marriage? No. But when you are fighting a war, you find allies, take the ground as it is given, and press on. You do not turn on those who are working with you.

As a Democrat, I am constantly disappointed at my party's lack of assertiveness on any number of issues ( I think being a Democrat means living with disappointment.... ). But I really think we are on the verge of a sea change here. For example, the House (under Democratic control) just passed ENDA (anyone remember ENDA?) and the Senate (also under Democratic control ) is only waiting for a Democratic president,so that this important piece of legislation will be safe from a Bush veto....

There have been times in our past when many of us could entertain the fantasy of voting for a third (or fourth or fifth ) party candidate in order to "teach the Democrats a lesson". We can no longer afford that luxury. The times are too serious, and the consequences too grave for all of us, gay and straight, poz and neg.

Edited for typos....

« Last Edit: October 08, 2008, 09:01:20 PM by atlq »

Logged

“Keep up the good work.... And God bless you.” -- Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

But getting back to the original point of this thread, which is (was) Mrs. Sarah Palin. The more time I spend thinking about this dingbat, the more I realize the opportunity we have here. We have not had this much fun with any politician since Dan(PotatoeHead)Quayle. If we have the misfortune of this piece of shit actually getting into office, at least we will have four years of great SNL skits to look forward to. (Until of course the right wing bans making fun of the Executive Office) I actually think we should run Tina Fey on an independent platform, who knows?

at least we will have four years of great SNL skits to look forward to. (Until of course the right wing bans making fun of the Executive Office) I actually think we should run Tina Fey on an independent platform, who knows?

This one keeps coming up, the "troopergate" investigation involvers both Ms. Gov Maverick, energy consultant, soccer mom and oh yeah Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency on the John McCain team.

I admit that I am more passionate about this one issue of same-sex marriage than many others, but that is not to the exclusion of those other issues.

I think as any HIV+ person on these forums, I am concerned about how healthcare is going to be available to us in the long run in particular. What I have seen from Palin or McCain on that issue is quite simply disgusting.

I also care about the huge portion of my tax dollars being wasted in an illegal and misguided war in Iraq against people who did not attack us.

I could go on but I don't think I really need to. I hope it's clear that I would not in a million years vote for the McCain / Palin ticket or vote for anyone else that caused a republican to be elected.

Quote

Three times since 2002 the Congress brought the Federal Marriage Amendment through committee and to the floors of the House and Senate for votes....until Nov. of 2006. Since then? No Federal Marriage Amendment....Hmmmm ,what could have changed in November of 2006?...I'm guessing that the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress had a lot everything to do with this.

I am thankful to the Democrats for not voting for this heinous legislation when it came up for a vote.

Back in 2002 when not a single state recognized same-sex marriage, the Democratic party position made somewhat more sense than it does today.

But in May 2004, the state of Massachusetts started recognizing them. And in June 2008 the state of California did.

Yet the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee did not support same-sex marriage at the federal level, and neither does the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

I think at some point the Democrats need to decide if they are on our side or not, and I'm dismayed that they still cannot come to terms with that issue in 2008. I hope that they will in 2012 and that I can more enthusiastically vote for them.

Quote

You should also remember that a large number of Democrats voted against this amendment and were bludgeoned with that vote in 2004 when the RNC, state Republican parties and Karl Rove wrote many of the numerous state constitutional amendments.

I am in no way defending the behavior of the republicans. It disgusts me.

Quote

As a Democrat, I am constantly disappointed at my party's lack of assertiveness on any number of issues ( I think being a Democrat means living with disappointment.... ).

I think you got that right ! I have voted for a lot of democratic candidates for various offices, and I keep being disappointed. Not so many have won, whether it comes to presidential elections or gubernatioral elections.

Quote

But I really think we are on the verge of a sea change here. For example, the House (under Democratic control) just passed ENDA (anyone remember ENDA?) and the Senate (also under Democratic control ) is only waiting for a Democratic president,so that this important piece of legislation will be safe from a Bush veto....

I agree ENDA is good, but it was unnecessarily castrated when it comes to transgender rights, even though it was known that Bush would veto it no matter what. And it was the democrats who took that away from the ENDA bill. With the democrats it's two steps forward and one backwards. In the end that's still better than the status quo or backwards steps that we get with the republicans, but I still hope to vote for someone who is better than that if I can.

Quote

There have been times in our past when many of us could entertain the fantasy of voting for a third (or fourth or fifth ) party candidate in order to "teach the Democrats a lesson". We can no longer afford that luxury. The times are too serious, and the consequences too grave for all of us, gay and straight, poz and neg.

It's not necessarily about teaching Democrats any lesson, but rather about getting them to better align their positions with their base. Voting for a ticket on the left doesn't always have to be done at the expense of a center ticket like the Obama/Biden one; and at least it doesn't have to favor the far right ticket if the election is not close in the state where you live.

I wish the left had more of a voice in the future so that they can make all the other parties think about their positions and perhaps evolve. In recent times, it has been mostly the extreme religious right tilting everybody else to the right, not just the Republicans but also the Democrats.

Three times since 2002 the Congress brought the Federal Marriage Amendment through committee and to the floors of the House and Senate for votes....until Nov. of 2006. Since then? No Federal Marriage Amendment....Hmmmm ,what could have changed in November of 2006?...I'm guessing that the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress had a lot everything to do with this. -me

sourceAlaska panel finds Palin abused power in firingBy MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer8 minutes agoA legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.

The Republican vice presidential nominee has been accused of firing a commissioner to settle a family dispute. Palin supporters have called the investigation politically motivated.

Monegan says he was dismissed as retribution for resisting pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.[/url]

sourceAlaska panel finds Palin abused power in firingBy MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer8 minutes agoA legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.

The Republican vice presidential nominee has been accused of firing a commissioner to settle a family dispute. Palin supporters have called the investigation politically motivated.

Monegan says he was dismissed as retribution for resisting pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.[/url]

Oh My......

Logged

“Keep up the good work.... And God bless you.” -- Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008